Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been in the situation where I've exchanged my number with two different women. One woman, her first 4 text to me were shots of her boobs. Another woman we texted back and forth for a bit, she wanted to sext, and sent me her vagina. It happens both ways, but it overwhelming tilts towards men initiating it. The problem I see is that lets say every 1/20 women will sext something too you, and lets say there's 15/20 guys trying to find that 1/20 woman who will sext as quick as they would. The reality is, you have an abundance of horny men, with not enough women to satisfy the surplus. That one woman who wants to sext already has the guy, and 4 more waiting in queue. It's a surplus of men circling around a very low demand of women.
Lol at least you got that far....the numbers I have exchanged with women usually start with random convo through texts and the girl just stops texting for no reason at some point.
It's an interesting find, to be sure. I'm sure I'm in the same boat....I know it happens, but don't fully realize the magnitude.
I have a couple of questions and I'm interested in your input:
1) What's to stop a woman from literally ignoring her inbox, knowing that a very high percentage of it is garbage and instead choosing to message guys that she likes? That way she could be selective about the quality.
2) What kind of success do you think an average woman would have ("success" here meaning, a reply that could potentially lead to a date) compared to an average man with regards to messaging someone on an OLD site?
There is nothing stopping a woman from ignoring her inbox. I don't see the point of being on a site like that if she's going to do so, though. All I did was open the messages. I deleted the following kinds of messages:
1. "Hi, how are you" and nothing more.
2. ANY kind of sexual commentary, or commentary about my body, figure, or looks.
3. Form letters.
4. Semi-literate messages. I'm a writer. I don't want to be with someone who uses "u" and "4" as words and who cannot be arsed with punctuation.
5. Messages leading to profiles that have bathroom selfies, shirtless selfies, semi-literate profile blurbs, talk about "bubble baths" or "sensuous/sensual activities" or anything remotely suggestive, only a sentence or two about the profile owner, or "any" in more than two categories for what he seeks.
6. Messages from people who clearly did not read my profile. (I made it clear I was not interested in having children, dating religious people, or dating people who thought George Bush was a good idea, so messages from men who wanted kids, talked about their faith, and had "Republican" or "conservative" for their politics got bounced.)
7. Messages from men outside a 15-mile radius.
8. Messages from men whose profile I just didn't find appealing.
As for your second question, I have no way of guessing or measuring that. I do think, however, that women who are forward and approach first on those sites put themselves at a disadvantage. My own experience and estimation is that women who approach men either online or in person are more likely to be seen as an easy conquest.
There is nothing stopping a woman from ignoring her inbox. I don't see the point of being on a site like that if she's going to do so, though.
....
As for your second question, I have no way of guessing or measuring that. I do think, however, that women who are forward and approach first on those sites put themselves at a disadvantage. My own experience and estimation is that women who approach men either online or in person are more likely to be seen as an easy conquest.
The point (as I'd imagine it) would be to browse through guys, find some that had more well-written profiles and other positive qualities that you were looking for and message them, rather than wading through endless mounds of garbage emails from guys initiating conversation with you.
Of course, thinking about it, you'd have to sift through those anyway to see the reply. But at least you'd know which username it was supposed to come from!
It's interesting that you feel that women who approach first put themselves at a disadvantage. I hadn't considered that, but I now realize that I feel the same way about men who do the approaching, that they're putting themselves at a disadvantage (for not identical, but related reasons).
Men are pigs, we know that. Stipulated. There are tons of men who would never do anything like that - anything piggish - and get ignored just like the pigs.
Men are pigs, we know that. Stipulated. There are tons of men who would never do anything like that - anything piggish - and get ignored just like the pigs.
Well, there's the great debate, the answer to which can be summarized as a quick "grass is greener".
Would you rather get flooded with messages, most of which are crap? Or would you rather get 0 messages?
Women complain about the former, men complain about the latter.
Men are pigs, we know that. Stipulated. There are tons of men who would never do anything like that - anything piggish - and get ignored just like the pigs.
This is why I say a good man's worst enemy when it comes to OLD is a bunch of other men--not the woman who ignores them. If women weren't inundated with this kind of thing (especially online) I think we'd be more friendly and open to advances from decent guys. But as it is, you can't tell who's good and who's not and so all your defenses go up and the good guys are drowned out in a sea of jerks often suffer for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind31
It's an interesting find, to be sure. I'm sure I'm in the same boat....I know it happens, but don't fully realize the magnitude.
I have a couple of questions and I'm interested in your input:
1) What's to stop a woman from literally ignoring her inbox, knowing that a very high percentage of it is garbage and instead choosing to message guys that she likes? That way she could be selective about the quality.
2) What kind of success do you think an average woman would have ("success" here meaning, a reply that could potentially lead to a date) compared to an average man with regards to messaging someone on an OLD site?
I tried #1 and it's a pretty good method I think. But for some reason, most of the men I contacted (if they answered) ended up being super shy about ever meeting me. Maybe it was so odd for a woman to contact them that they doubted the validity of it, lol. I had a few that became aggressive too (wanting to meet me that night and such). And a few rejections for various reasons (some said they were dating someone, some said they were looking for someone younger, etc).
I never lasted long on OLD. I've tried it a few times and always drop out within a month or so because I was a combination of overwhelmed and frustrated at the same time. But every few months I would try again.
Yikes. I've had a couple men on OKC act like douchebags, and they were fairly young and immature, but aside from those two, I never dealt with the nonsense in the OP's article. I received a few similar messages on PoF years ago, but that's about it.
I've only been messaged a d*ck picture once or twice, but it was on another site that the guy found me on.
Any time I talk to a woman about her experiences with online dating, I realize why I've been successful at it. It's not that I'm awesome; it's just that my competition is awful.
Before anyone starts in with the "white knight" garbage, read the whole piece. This is a guy who spends a lot of time on 4chan, not exactly a bastion of feminist thought.
Here is his original account of his experience, as posted on Reddit:
Yep. I ran into a lot of that--and no, I did not post "provocative" photos or anything remotely sexual on my profiles. This is just how many men treat women on those sites (and the internet in general), why many women do not bother to send a polite "no, thank you," and why women should feel absolutely zero remorse in simply blocking men they are not interested in from the get-go, as soon as they approach.
That's sad, and it sheds light on why many solid guys have little success in online dating. This definitely changes my perspective, though, from being a little frustrated at women for getting almost zero responses, to being frustrated at sex-starved guys making it almost impossible for a sincere guy to contact women and get a response.
Yeah, so? Perhaps women should ignore those guys and look for the men who are actually interested in who they are as a person and not what their figure looks like naked in 24 hours or less.
I do not do these things. I've written some well thought out messages and I've also written the I'm interested in getting to know you message. I get nothing, absolutely nothing.
Honestly, women are there own worst enemy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
